3 ms·

And as an American citizen I'm very glad that we aren't contributing to the problem by absorbing a lot of refugees. We should be providing aid, and if necessary

And as an American citizen I'm very glad that we aren't contributing to the problem by absorbing a lot of refugees. We should be providing aid, and if necessary, peacekeeping support so we can get these areas on their feet. The solution to "things are going to hell" isn't move everybody to the West, especially if we're absorbing all the smart people.

rmateu 9y ago
You are absorbing a lot of Venezuelans, they are just called asylees — rather than refugees — because we are able to arrive in the US with tourist visas. Last year Venezuelans requesting political asylum passed China and is now the number 1 country. 3 years ago we weren't even on the top 10. https://www.voanews.com/a/veneuela-china-us-asylum-requests/3719949.html https://www.voanews.com/a/veneuela-china-us-asylum-requests/...
openasocket 9y ago
Refugees are accepted based on need. Priority is given to those from oppressed minorities, LGBT individuals, people with medical conditions and disabilities, etc. See https://www.state.gov/j/prm/releases/factsheets/2017/266447.htm https://www.state.gov/j/prm/releases/factsheets/2017/266447.... . We aren't systematically taking out the "smart people," even a massively expanded refugee program is unlikely to lead to a "brain drain" effect. I agree that stabilizing the region is a better solution than taking in refugees. But stabilizing the region is much, much more difficult and requires time to work, during which individuals are suffering. The solution is to do both: resettle those in imminent danger, while providing aid and peacekeeping support to restore stability to the region. Of course, the events in Syria have demonstrated, in my opinion, a serious apathy on the part of the west to actually providing that second point. What the US and NATO allies have done in Syria is the bare minimum, and in doing so has allowed dangerous groups to fester and grow, and created a massive humanitarian crisis. The attitude in certain circles seems to be that as long as the West doesn't get involved in this, they can't be held responsible for the outcome, while getting involved means the West owns the issue and any consequences. But the issue is already the West's responsibility, because we have the ability to act and choose not to. We bear some responsibility for what is happening in Syria, whether through action or inaction.
- muninn_ 9y ago
  But even when NATO/the West does more than the bare minimum, the whole world criticizes, NATO fails at the mission, and we just spend a boatload of money. All I hear is how we're intervening in everybody's affairs, until something bad happens then everybody wants our help, but then not too much help, just enough, oh and if you accidentally kill a civilian than that means we have 1,000 terrorists or whatever rhetoric. People in Venezuela are calling for US airstrikes. Like seriously? After all the anti-US/West sentiment now when it comes up in your backyard you want us there? No thanks. Solve your own problems. >But the issue is already the West's responsibility, because we have the ability to act and choose not to I mean, that's your opinion, but I disagree with that completely. Syria, though, is far more complicated than a normal situation.
  - openasocket 9y ago
    Totally agree it's way too early to be talking about airstrikes in Venezuela. My opinion is that, when faced with a potential humanitarian crisis, we should evaluate our various options (including inaction) for what leads to the least casualties and highest quality of life for as many people, including secondary factors like the possibility of intervention inspiring terrorists. This model will be far from perfect, as it's impossible to determine true outcomes 5, 10, 20 years down the line, but it will be the best we can come up with. Then we pick the best option (which will often involve a judgment call), and inaction is treated neither more or less important than any other option. From a moral perspective, I think this is the best strategy available. You raise an important point about optics and the opinion of the world abroad, but I frankly don't care. People can complain and rage against the West for it's policies and decisions all they want. All we can do is our best, and we should do so proudly and openly. > People in Venezuela are calling for US airstrikes. Like seriously? After all the anti-US/West sentiment now when it comes up in your backyard you want us there? No thanks. Solve your own problems. Everyone is deserving of help, even those that hate us, even hypocrites. If they are ungrateful, that's there prerogative. We don't do this for approval, we act because it's the best we can do. I understand and accept that you disagree with my view, and that my view isn't the most popular opinion.

rmateu 9y ago

You are absorbing a lot of Venezuelans, they are just called asylees — rather than refugees — because we are able to arrive in the US with tourist visas. Last year Venezuelans requesting political asylum passed China and is now the number 1 country. 3 years ago we weren't even on the top 10. https://www.voanews.com/a/veneuela-china-us-asylum-requests/3719949.html https://www.voanews.com/a/veneuela-china-us-asylum-requests/...

openasocket 9y ago

Refugees are accepted based on need. Priority is given to those from oppressed minorities, LGBT individuals, people with medical conditions and disabilities, etc. See https://www.state.gov/j/prm/releases/factsheets/2017/266447.htm https://www.state.gov/j/prm/releases/factsheets/2017/266447.... . We aren't systematically taking out the "smart people," even a massively expanded refugee program is unlikely to lead to a "brain drain" effect. I agree that stabilizing the region is a better solution than taking in refugees. But stabilizing the region is much, much more difficult and requires time to work, during which individuals are suffering. The solution is to do both: resettle those in imminent danger, while providing aid and peacekeeping support to restore stability to the region. Of course, the events in Syria have demonstrated, in my opinion, a serious apathy on the part of the west to actually providing that second point. What the US and NATO allies have done in Syria is the bare minimum, and in doing so has allowed dangerous groups to fester and grow, and created a massive humanitarian crisis. The attitude in certain circles seems to be that as long as the West doesn't get involved in this, they can't be held responsible for the outcome, while getting involved means the West owns the issue and any consequences. But the issue is already the West's responsibility, because we have the ability to act and choose not to. We bear some responsibility for what is happening in Syria, whether through action or inaction.

muninn_ 9y ago
But even when NATO/the West does more than the bare minimum, the whole world criticizes, NATO fails at the mission, and we just spend a boatload of money. All I hear is how we're intervening in everybody's affairs, until something bad happens then everybody wants our help, but then not too much help, just enough, oh and if you accidentally kill a civilian than that means we have 1,000 terrorists or whatever rhetoric. People in Venezuela are calling for US airstrikes. Like seriously? After all the anti-US/West sentiment now when it comes up in your backyard you want us there? No thanks. Solve your own problems. >But the issue is already the West's responsibility, because we have the ability to act and choose not to I mean, that's your opinion, but I disagree with that completely. Syria, though, is far more complicated than a normal situation.
- openasocket 9y ago
  Totally agree it's way too early to be talking about airstrikes in Venezuela. My opinion is that, when faced with a potential humanitarian crisis, we should evaluate our various options (including inaction) for what leads to the least casualties and highest quality of life for as many people, including secondary factors like the possibility of intervention inspiring terrorists. This model will be far from perfect, as it's impossible to determine true outcomes 5, 10, 20 years down the line, but it will be the best we can come up with. Then we pick the best option (which will often involve a judgment call), and inaction is treated neither more or less important than any other option. From a moral perspective, I think this is the best strategy available. You raise an important point about optics and the opinion of the world abroad, but I frankly don't care. People can complain and rage against the West for it's policies and decisions all they want. All we can do is our best, and we should do so proudly and openly. > People in Venezuela are calling for US airstrikes. Like seriously? After all the anti-US/West sentiment now when it comes up in your backyard you want us there? No thanks. Solve your own problems. Everyone is deserving of help, even those that hate us, even hypocrites. If they are ungrateful, that's there prerogative. We don't do this for approval, we act because it's the best we can do. I understand and accept that you disagree with my view, and that my view isn't the most popular opinion.